YAKOV KROTOV
Pope�s primacy
If we look closely at the history of the quarrel between Eastern
and Western Churches we shall find out that there have two quite
different stages in the discussion of the Pope�s primacy. On the
first stage, in 4-13 cc. the discussion went between Byzantine Orthodox
and Latin theologians. Western Christians seemed to be unanimous
in agreement about the role of the Pope in the Church.
Then, in 13-19 centuries discussions between Eastern Orthodox
and Western theologians become dull repetition of the aged-old arguments,
but a new discussion began, now inside Western Christianity. First,
the Pope�s primacy had been criticized by Roman Catholic theologians,
who promoted instead the teaching on conciliarism (stating that
Ecumenical Council have the higher authority than Popes.) This discussion
continued even in XIX century and it existence was the main reason
why the dogma about Pope�s primacy was maintained as late as 1870,
and why the part of Roman Catholic didn�t agree with this dogma.
But, certainly, much more important was the revolt of Luther and
Reformation against Papacy. This revolt happened not in X century,
when Popes have been most vicious, but in XIV. All rational arguments
and Bible quotations which could be used against Rome had been known
in five centuries before Luther or great "conciliarists"of XV c.
What happened which made the difference?
The crucial step in maintaining Pope�s primacy was made by Popes
of XI-XIII cc., from Gregory VII to Innocent III. They didn�t say
anything unheard in the times of Pope Leo the Great. They only made
the doctrine more articulate. "Innocent himself defined the limits
of his full authority" (Jedin, 4, 142). "Under Innocent III the
Pope�s position in the Church did not become something basically
different. But he gave to the doctrine of the primacy a strict formulation"
(id., 143, cited from Tillmann).
"To define", "to give a strict formulation" was to do something
very Western in a sense of distinction. East can live under most
totalitarian secular regime, under the dictatorship of a Patriarch
in church matters, but it is not bothered until dictator don�t seek
to put a strict distinction between his power and obligations and
duties of others. Such distinction makes the whole system different.
East simply prefer not to feel power as something different, or
opposed, or separated from the society in general. East enjoy vagueness
in which there is no distinctive difference between tzar and a slave
as there is no opposition between body and nature. The limits are
not defined, everything is in semi-darkness. Not the Pope�s primacy
is bad, but the will of Popes do give strict definition to this
primacy makes Easterners feel themselves ill and uncertain. Protestants
and Eastern Orthodox prefer to remain on the ancient position: certainly,
Church has only one Head, Jesus Christ, certainly, there must be
some hierarchy in the Church, but it is unnecessary to make attempts
to give strict definitions to rights and limits of the power of
church hierarchs. Some things must remain undefined. By the way,
while the theologians gave precise definition of the Pope�s power,
they didn�t bother to do the same with Emperors. "To the imperial
office ...pertained a certain universality that had never been precisely
defined." (Jedin, 4, 143).
Protestants are in one sphere at least more Easterners than Westerners.
East Orthodox Christians prefer not to give any strict definition
to the authority in the Church, not to formulate, where the authority
of council finishes, the authority of bishops begins. Everything
in intermingled. Modern Eastern Orthodox theology speaks about the
"Church multitude" (pliroma in Greek) as the main authority in the
Church. Who constitutes this "multitude"? Not bishops and priests
(there is no teaching about magisterium), not even Ecumenical Councils,
but the Church in general. And through which institution does this
"Church in general" speak? There is no definite institution, the
Church teaching organize itself by some "organic process."
This sounds very vague to the Western ear. But such attitude is
more ancient that Roman Catholic teaching about Pope and magisterium.
It is important to point that the same vagueness can be detected
in the attitude of Protestants to the Bible. Protestants definitely
speak about the Bible as the highest authority, and this makes them
different from Eastern Orthodox. Where the Protestants place the
Bible, Eastern Orthodox place the "Church in general". But just
as Eastern Orthodox avoid explaining of how does "Church in general"
express herself, so Protestants (from the Eastern Orthodox point
of view at least) avoid explaining of how does the Bible express
herself.
In reality, "Church in general" doesn�t express herself directly,
she expresses itself through contradictory and complicated net of
interpretations of the position of "Church in general" of different
Church institutions, theologians, hierarchs, laypeople without any
formal and definite procedures. Bible doesn�t express herself directly
to Protestants, but a large, complicated and contradictory net of
different interpretations of the Bible works is at work in Protestantism.
From the Roman Catholic point of view both Eastern Orthodox and
Protestant ways of thinking, discussion and decisions of what the
authority says is chaotic, lacks of logical distinctions, rational
borders between different positions and views.
Most people, who identify themselves as belonging to the "modern",
"Western" civilization, consiensly prefer the rational, logical
way of solving problems. That is why Eastern Catholics and Protestant
tends to look upon their theological behavior as more rational then
it is in reality. However, most modern Western civilized people
in their everyday life behave like Easterners, like their most ancient
ancestors, relying not so much on logic, as on on the mixture of
both logic, intuition, emotions, passions, rational believes.
Protestants, however, can be Easternly irrational and vague in
their attitudes towards the authority in the Church, but they are
quite Western in political and economical thinking. They�ve refused
to adopt the first result of the rational thinking in the West (teaching
on Pope�s infallibility), but they adopt the style in general.
|